KnickDanger wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:but now I think I just don’t respect him at all. I actually used to like him a lot too. He lost his absolute mind when the Knicks drafted both Frank and Porzingis. I’m sorry. You’re in the media. You have to speak at least what you think is truthful. You are absolutely supposed to say you disagree with what the Knicks did in those drafts. That’s fine. I personally wanted the Knicks to draft Frank. However, SAS lost his damn mind over the air. He had zero problem bringing Frank and KP down, when they were both kids coming from Europe. That was wrong.

And then, last night, SAS shouts how he was screaming for the Knicks to draft Donovan Mitchel. How could anyone forget? SAS lost his mind over the Knicks not drafting Dennis Smith Jr and MAYBE to a lesser extent, Malik Monk. I don’t remember him one time mentioning DM, let alone screaming about him. I wouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t even know who he was at that point!

You, Stephen A Smith, just lied on the air to make yourself look good.

I agree. I promise you he was not clamoring for Mitchell -- no one was. Michael Kay has said the same thing. Mitchell's name was in the mix, but both originally were wetting their pants over DSJ, as were pretty much all the Frank haters, and when DSJ flamed out they revised it to Mitchell. I've always felt this was really about Phil and Dolan. Kay has always been a phony, but I agree, Stephen A turned along the way somehow. I think they figure they're getting a bigger share that way.

I was(made a thread about it), but honestly not because I thought he would become THIS good this early. I saw a G with a 7ft wingspan, who was built like a tank, who had elite level athleticism, who was also pulling up and hitting deep 3 pointers. Not to mention played in the tough ACC as their go to guy for Louisville and was considered a defensive first type of guard with developing offensive game. Basically had all the tools you could pretty much as for.

But I wanted to come away with both Spida and Frank to run the back court with KP for the next 15 yrs. The length and defense on the perimeter with KP as an anchor would have established a defensive core for yrs to come in my eyes at the time. So wasn't with the thought process of netting a star but the through process of an identity the team could have had.

martin wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:I think Vassell is a similar prospect in this yr draft though. Defense first, 7ft wingspan, high level athlete, 3 point jumper, ACC conference. Doesn't have the handle that Mitchell had that popped out at me. And is more lean than compact like Mitchell. But just like Paul George, Jimmy Butler and Kwahi Leonard. It all comes down to his ability to develop an iso game to score off the dribble when necessary. But you take that when all those other attributes are there.

I like Vassell as a high floor guy but just don't see the burst or separation capability that he would need to make the jump to that next level like the players you mention. Could be me though, haven't watched him enough.

This is why the draft turns into a crap shoot. Because even expert scouts don't know whose flaws are going to ruin them and whose strengths will overcome it. Knock on Mitchell was even with his handle, length and frame he sucked at finishing around the rim and had to settle for to many poor shots because of it. Then he came to the league and made that a strength which opened up his whole offensive game.

I can't say that Vassell will or won't be able to develop that part of his game. But IMO you go after the guy that has all those other combination of attributes. And I guess get with the coaching staff to see if they see fixable things they can do to get him to that level.

That or go after the guy with ELITE craft(Tyler Terry).

Sports entertainment has staff writers. It's constructed much like any other reality show out there. NBA and ESPN ratings have been tanking for a while now and there are a myriad of factors ( cord cutting, streaming outside of standard ways ratings are measured, lack of streaming options, time of games, no stakes in the regular season, ugly Morey style basketball that just isn't very fun to watch, politics, other entertainment options for people, etc, etc)

If you look at Stephen A Smith as a sports journalist, he sucks.

If you look at Stephen A Smith as a paid actor on a reality show, he's actually extremely good at his job. Some of the **** that the writing staff gives him is incomprehensible, but he makes it sell on tape for ratings. Max Kellerman is an example of someone who is a bad actor and can't sell the material on air.

There is also a demographic push here.

Stuff like Bill Simmons and Grantland don't move the ratings/money needle. Not all demographics are valued the same by advertisers. They covet getting viewers and consumers along the tracks of a Bill Simmons ( wealthy, in their prime earning years, raised in a sports obsessed culture) But the NBA is always going to trend far younger. Anthony Mackie, aka Falcon, said something pretty interesting when discussing the movie industry when he was NOT doing PR work for the Avengers franchise. He basically said all modern movies are built and marketed for China and 16 year olds. That the idea of a classic movie star like a Stallone was now pretty much dead.

The NBA and ESPN are making a calculated risk but one on their natural pathway. They aren't going to get the high number of fans like Bill Simmons. They don't have the logistics of the NFL or the history of baseball. They will trend towards the soap opera narrative fueled by social media structure in part because there is not enough real basketball news to cover 24/7/365. Baseball can spend all year talking about their minor league prospects. The draft is bigger and the rosters are larger and there's more material. The NBA has a 2 round draft, very limited free agency and a salary system that makes player movement punitive.

The NBPA is also very powerful at the top. A few players drive the marketing system in the NBA and they've essentially held the teams and league and sport hostage. The trade off is losing older established fans ( those who are less inclined to enjoy politics in their face and MoreyBall and soap operas) for the hope of getting exponential interest overseas and from a younger demographic. Baseball can withstand the marketing hit if they lost Mike Trout. The NBA's marketing machine would collapse without LeBron James and a few others.

Stephen A Smith lied. OK, actors lie. Matthew McConaghey isn't really an astronaut who bumps into the perpetually stranded Matt Damon. Nor is he really a red neck detective who sounds like David Mamet.

The marketing shift was not the plan. David Stern originally wanted to build the NBA post Jordan marketing around Grant Hill ( Duke pedigree, singer wife, clean cut image) and Kobe Bryant ( just enough of an edge to keep the "street" audience and just enough of the refinement ( basketball bloodlines/legacy, international upbringing) to keep the most coveted demographics while playing in the crown jewel franchise of the league. Then Hill got hurt and Kobe got mixed up in raping a girl in Colorado. Several suite owners in Portland cashed in and walked over the Jail Blazers. Resistance on the dress code. Then the Malice In the Palace where former players on ESPN defended the beating of fans. The tipping point appeared to be totally under the radar. At one point, post The Decision, Payne Stewart, a golfer, called LeBron James a "thug" Stern recognized the way he marketed Bird and Magic and Jordan was no longer possible. You basically had to factor in modern player stupidity into all business operations.

The NBA's marketing is for a younger and international audience. The parade of self inflicted PR disasters were just too insurmountable. The goal is to drive up ratings at all costs to drive up the negotiated price of the TV contracts. And to use each franchise sale as a progressive model to inflate the valuation of all NBA franchises.

The older hardcore established NBA fan, like many here, were seen as acceptable casualties. Stern figured he could get three more viewers to lock step at the cost of losing you as a fan. The NBA should be the most popular sport in the entire world after soccer. But the players keep ****ing it all up. All they gave the NBA was a soap opera, so finally the league power structure said fine, we will market a damn soap opera then.

Smith is a mouthpiece for the league's marketing narrative. He's an actor. If you are offended, he's done his job.

TripleThreat wrote:The goal is to drive up ratings at all costs to drive up the negotiated price of the TV contracts.

You are slipping, full post doesn't feel legit without any reference to The Wire but maybe it's early in the day still.

Been meaning to ask. If ratings are a large part of TV contracts, why wouldn't the NBA, especially considering COVID and China hits to revenue, consider pumping up NY, seems like this is an avenue for artificially getting ratings way up. Maybe this draft was a little too dull with no Zion type and maybe the Knicks organization isn't where it should be. Next year though?

And in the same stain, why wouldn't Nike and the like want Giannis on a team like NY instead of Miami, GS? Again, organization ****ery aside, maybe it's time?

Nalod wrote:SAS as a respected Journalist left the building years ago. He is a personality. Listening to him rant about Mitchell was fabricated as called out but his delivery is playful about it.
As I recall the buzz was about either Dennis Smith Jr or Malik Monk. Neither of the three has clearly lived up to their draft status. Donovan Mitchell taken 14th demonstrates not PHil ineptitude for blindness toward the triangle and only the triangle, but fact how the draft is a crap shoot and a credit to Mitchell’s hard work to get to where he is.
Forget SAS for a moment......Its obvious Bam and Donovan Mitchell would go 2-3 behind Tatum if redone.
As for the rest of it why not praise Bam and Donovan Mitchell for putting in the work and rising over and to achieve.
Seems to be lost as its more fun to point fingers at others who missed these guys? Every years teams get it wrong. Its not easy.

I’m not criticizing the Knicks or anyone for passing on Donovan. I agree he and Bam should be praised and celebrated as really good/great athletes. I’m saying it’s f’ed up that SAS lost his mind about how the Knicks drafted Dennis, drags Frank down and goes on and lies about how he said the Knicks should have drafted Donovan. This isn’t about who should have drafted who. It’s about irresponsible journalism.

martin wrote:Been meaning to ask. If ratings are a large part of TV contracts, why wouldn't the NBA, especially considering COVID and China hits to revenue, consider pumping up NY, seems like this is an avenue for artificially getting ratings way up. Maybe this draft was a little too dull with no Zion type and maybe the Knicks organization isn't where it should be. Next year though?

And in the same stain, why wouldn't Nike and the like want Giannis on a team like NY instead of Miami, GS? Again, organization ****ery aside, maybe it's time?

The best example to cover this is the post The Decision Cleveland franchise. While LBJ and Bosh going to the Heat helped Miami, it did so at the expense of two other franchises. When NBA teams go for sale, rarely are they going to be the crown jewel type franchises. A situation like the Clippers to Steve Ballmer has a little more complexity to it and I think will be more of an exception to the rule.

If Cleveland tanked post Decision and never recovered, then it would deter bidding on the "typical" NBA franchise for sale. One that isn't loaded with superstars and is not in a prime contention window. If the message is all small market teams are only farm systems for the large market super teams, it's a bad investment by prospective owners. Sports franchises are usually luxuries, signs of wealth and power by prospective owners. It's a new shiny toy for them. They aren't going to bet big money on a horse to lose and keep losing and have no hope to ever win. The other factor is there is a very very very small pool of potential individual owners out there. The NBA has long learned that group ownership is a total mess. This makes it more complicated to make a franchise look good to buy as groups will group think more to profit and individuals will lean more towards winning to justify their egos. It's also destabilizing to individual fan bases to stomp out all forms of hope. You can't get gate revenue when no one wants to watch a team who will never win ( Sort of the Hinkie/76er problem) Also it impacts TV ratings which bleeds into upsetting the networks who offer those huge TV deals.

This is why the Cavs won three lotteries in four years. They were a test case to the world on what happens when 3/4ths of the NBA is nothing more than the Washington Generals. It's also why the Pelicans "won" Anthony Davis not long after a franchise sale.

What Nike wants is their signature athletes in the Finals. The Cavs/Warriors run of Finals was ideal for them. They had clients on one side ( LBJ, Love, Irving) and Kevin Durant on the other. When LBJ was in the East, when Nike had influence on player movement ( they can't control where a guy gets drafted outside the lottery), they pushed guys West. So LBJ could have a clear path to always be in the Finals, where he gave them the best ROI for that lifetime contract.

To answer your question, if the NBA had a wider talent base, i.e. 15 LeBrons in the league and another 20 Hardens and another 30 Steph Currys at the same time, the draft wouldn't need to be rigged and you wouldn't have so many financially distressed franchises that needed league manipulation to prop up their franchise values. I don't think the league is looking to **** the Knicks on winning a lottery, I just think other teams are more of a priority to need help. For example, if the Knicks don't win a lottery, they will still sell out and make money. However the Atlanta Hawks suffering without talent on a team already having attendance problems, that drags down the valuation of every team in the league.

I also think the Knicks have to account for themselves here. Players want to go where they can get paid the most and contend. No one wanted to sign with the Warriors before its current dynasty. There was one offseason when all they could get was Corey Maggette. If the Knicks had the young Warriors dynasty roster and it's asset base, they could reasonably get to Greek Freak. Even if Nike wanted Greek Freak in NY, the Knicks have been so asset mismanaged they can't afford to trade for him to get his critical Bird Rights which are essentially to financially building a contender level squad. Miami is is in a good position because they have cap space, a good young talent base, a great coach, a nice city and stable ownership/organization.

Nike wanted Durant on the Warriors so they could push the "villain" narrative against LBJ in the Finals. But the Warriors put themselves in a position to make that possible. They had good cap and asset management. If the Warriors had been run like the Knicks, then Durant would have had to go elsewhere.

If the Knicks want to guarantee to win the lottery with the next Patrick Ewing/ LBJ / Duncan type franchise guy, the only way to guarantee it is to have Dolan sell the franchise at a record price. Then prospective bidders will see a new owner get an immediate return on his investment. This guy paid big money for an NBA team, but he got immediate rewards for it. It makes prospective owners want to bid more. If I buy a team, I'll get the next Tim Duncan too. Or the next Anthony Davis.

Until then, the Knicks have to do their part to put themselves in a position for the league and Nike to help them.

Being a cash rich team is a huge benefit. In this case, it does operate as a bit of a tax. If the Knicks were a team on the verge of financial collapse, it could all be different.